5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Vantaa.
6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock and bore her mother’s maiden name. Her mother and her biological father concluded a child support agreement the same year. The agreement was verified by the social services.
7.  In 1956 the mother married another man and in 1961 the applicant’s name was changed to that of her mother’s husband. The spouses agreed that the applicant’s biological father was never to be mentioned. The applicant had two siblings from that marriage.
8.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lagen om faderskap) came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act (laki isyyslain toimeenpanosta, lagen angående införande av lagen om faderskap) state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.
9.  At some point the applicant started wondering about her biological background. In 2001 she discovered that in the church registry, which until 1993 was the only official population registry, her mother’s husband was listed as her stepfather. The State population registry, with which the church records were merged in 1993, stated that the mother’s husband was her father. She also located a copy of the child support agreement in the archives of the social services which made it possible for her to locate her biological father.
10.  On 25 September 2002 the information in the State population register was corrected.
11.  On 6 February 2003 the applicant initiated paternity proceedings against her biological father in the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). She claimed that she had only learned in December 2001 that the mother’s husband, who had been registered as her father, was not her biological father.
12.  On 18 June 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that during the five-year time-limit, the applicant had been an adult and could have initiated paternity proceedings. She could also have questioned her mother or could have verified the information on the church register, which had been correct all the time. The application of the five-year time-limit was not in contradiction to the Constitution or the Convention. Her claim was thus time-barred.
13.  On 17 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), claiming that she had not known that her mother’s husband was not her biological father. Her mother had testified in the District Court that she had never told her daughter about her origins and that this issue was never discussed in the family. During the five-year period the applicant would not have had any interest in initiating proceedings as she was not yet aware of her legal status.
14.  On 15 March 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision on the same grounds as the latter.
15.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal.
16.  On 12 October 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.
17.  In January 2005 the applicant filed a petition with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman). On 16 February 2005 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that the national courts had acted within their margin of appreciation, and that he could not examine a case unless the margin of appreciation had been exceeded or misused.
18.  In 2007 the applicant had a DNA test performed privately on her biological father, which proved with 99.99% certainty that he was her biological father.
19.  On 3 July 2008 the applicant’s biological father died.